C 141 3 



difcovered) w that the continual moving, and 

 lively agitation obfervable in herds of deer, 

 is one of the circumftances which painting 

 cannot reprefent, but that it is not lefs an 

 object of beauty and cheerfulnefs in park 

 fcenery." The fame obfervation might have 

 been made with equal truth and novelty on 

 the warbling of birds, and its cheerful effect 

 in garden fcenery ; for actual audible found 

 is not more incapable of being painted, than 

 actual continued motion ; and real fenfible 

 fragrance is juft upon the fame footing. 



After all, for what purpofe is this circum- 

 flance mentioned ? is it to eftablifh the fupe- 

 riority of nature over painting ? I am very 

 far from denying it. That of landfcape- 

 gardening over landfcape-painting ? there 

 has been no queftion about their refpective 

 fuperiority. But if there had, how does it 

 affect that queftion? does the landfcape- 

 gardener claim any merit in the grouping of 

 deer, as he does in that of trees ? does he 



difpofe 



